Would you pay 25 cents a mile to drive in the carpool lane? A coin is being thrown around as an option for drivers to pay when driving on Hwy 85 or 101 in a few years. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is proposing HOT lanes—not “hot” as in temperature but rather HOT as in High Occupancy Toll lanes.
We currently have High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, also known as carpool lanes. A HOT lane would allow single drivers to drive in an existing carpool lane for a fee of 25 cents a mile (less then it costs to run a Humvee based on miles per gallon). An additional lane may be created next to the “fast” lane, therefore having two lanes for carpoolers and those who pay a fee.
The idea is to apply a Fastrak device to the windshield of a car that stores the financial amount somewhat like a gift card and would electronically transmit data and debit the drivers Fastrak account. (Fastrak is currently used for those who commute using bridges in the Bay Area.)
HOT lanes are currently in operation in San Diego, Orange County and Houston. They are also being implemented in Minneapolis, Denver and Tampa and more cities are considering it.
Drivers would be allowed to enter and exit the HOT lane(s) at certain points. The pricing could be dynamic, being equated to the amount of traffic: less traffic and lower price per mile driven vs. more traffic and higher price per mile driven.
As you can imagine, there are many opinions about HOT lanes. One complaint is that those who live farther south would have to pay more, creating geographic inequity. For example, the idea is that Highway 85 would have HOT lanes the entire length from south San Jose to Mountain View and 101 would start in south San Jose/Morgan Hill and go to around Redwood City. Others would argue that the working poor commute longer distances for employment—yet another equity issue with HOT lanes.
Implementation has been in the works for the Bay Area for several years with the passing of Assembly bills and feasibility studies. Public outreach will soon begin with approval going before the VTA board in Fall 2008, with a final implementation set for 2012.
So, what do you think?
Are you game for another fee?
Is market pricing a good way to manage moving cars?
Will HOT lanes get people on to mass transit?
It is difficult to enforce carpool lanes today, so can we expect the same for HOT lanes?
How do those who must commute to work every day feel about paying to drive in HOT lanes?
I’d like to see HST (High Speed Toll lanes). If I’m paying extra to buy a car that cruises easily at 90 to 100 mph, I’d sure be willing to pay extra to be able to legally drive it at that speed.
P.O.
TAX, TAX,TAX….Is that all politicians think about? Try working on the budget deficit and cut spending sometime. This out of control spending has got to stop.
Folks that have a longer commute are already penalized over those living closer to work. The HOT lane will not change that.
If those who can afford the HOT lane use it, it should reduce the conjestion for those who can’t afford it.
More efficient traffic flow sounds like a green thing. What’s not to like?
PO:
I thought your column was to give us insights or spur discussion on issues affecting the City of San Jose, where you serve. This issue has nothing to do with the City of San Jose since there are no city toll roads. Why don’t you give us insight or start a discussion on the budget issues the city has to deal with. The front page of Section B refers to two dozen issues/proposals to deal with the serious budget issues. You continue to be a good politician. Deflect the hard issues to something that will spur discussion but over which you have no influence. Your column is getting weaker and weaker as the weeks go by. Give us some real city issues to discuss.
I love the idea. It creates a funding mechanism tied to actual demand for roadways at peak hours. For the price of a latte, you could get around traffic jams during peak hours. I recommend selling gift cards for commuter lane access. I can easily imagine marketing the cards as stocking stuffers and spot bonuses at work. Employers who are forced to get workers from out of the area could give out cards to workers.
P.O. :
I was at the workshop in San Jose last Thursday (a workshop that was not well advertised outside the transit community – possibly to curtail public outrage?) Any support of an extra gas tax would depend on
* who will be managing the money
* whether or not they are directly accountable to taxpayers via the ballot box
A VTA/San Jose staffer (whose name I didn’t get) whined over how San Jose has $20 million in backlogged pothole work throughout the city. Immediately after I pointed out how VTA just spent nearly $40 million on property for a BART extension they have no money for, he immediately left the workshop. Clearly he had a phobia most government officials had, especially found here: the fear of being held accountable.
As a people, we need to start educating ourselves as to who represents us at the regional level for decisions that affect our buses, trains, and roads.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/about_mtc/commphot.htm
Dean Chu, SJ Vice Mayor Dave Cortese, and County Supervisor Ken Yeager all represent the Valley as MTC Commissioners.
Fortunately I’m in the midst of reorganizing the VTA watchdog/advocacy group I run.
Several groups monitor the MTC and fight for a more transparent, more accountable regional transit agency:
http://www.transdef.org/
http://www.transcoalition.org/
Both groups also fight in the Bay Area region for better public transit and true smart growth for all.
“Money from Prop. 42 was supposed to go toward building and repairing roads, trains and highways, but the state has used nearly all of it to help balance its budget.”
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_transcash08.a1df3.html
“Only 60 percent of federal gas taxes goes to the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba597/
Here’s a thought. Just thinking outside the box here. I know this may just sound totally whack, but here me out…
Try spending our gasoline taxes and Road improvement proposition money – on roads.
Bad idea. There are few things left that all Americans must endure together regardless of class. Things like the DMV, security lines at airports, and traffic are about all that is left.
We should address traffic concerns in a manner that provides relief to all regardless of income. By the way, we shouldn’t let people buy their way out of security lines at airports, but that is already well out of the gate.
A capitalist system will naturally mean that there are many inequalities among classes, but government should treat all people equally and not provide better service to those who are wealthier. Once upper income people are satisfied there will be even less pressure on government to meet the needs of middle and lower class folks.
There are only really three things that need to be fixed and the city budget will be fixed.
Retirement, Healthcare and Salaries.
Everything else is a tweak.
The HOT fee is an interseting idea but MOST interesting if presented as a reward or incentive for traffic reducing/green behavior, instead of just a disincentive for driving someplace quickly. Just as we gave free carpool lane stickers to hybrid owners, how about a free 10 miles in the HOV lane as a gift for everytime somebody takes the bus or lightrail?
The aim should not be to make people hate driving, but to make them like the alternatives.
Pierluigi:
Tell the MTC to stuff it! The Metropolitan Transit Committe is another government agency that imposes its authority on the people (and sucks up tax dollars) but is not accountable to the people. Why don’t we get to elect these people? Why don’t we get to elect the VTA? Why don’t we get to elect the Redevelopment Agency, (and have a citizen-based RDA committee)?
Answer to all of the above: Because we’re chumps!
Pete Campbell
People will only pay to use the toll lane if it is significantly faster than the other lanes. Therefore the toll would have to be high enough that only a small proportion of drivers would be in the toll lane.
Since the number of lanes remains the same, if there are fewer cars in the toll lane there would be more cars in the free lanes. So it would improve things for the wealthy and make the lot of the non-wealthy worse. It is not going to improve the mood of people stuck in even worse traffic to watch BMWs and Lexuses zooming by in the toll lane.
I think a much better idea would be to replace San Jose’s primitive traffic light system with computer controlled lights. This would increase the carrying capacity of the surface roads and encourage more cars to get off the freeway.
There was a study done a few years ago which predicted that surface roads could carry 25% more traffic with centrally controlled lights.
Just how little do you all think City staff should be paid? These people have chosen to spend between two and six years of their lives being educated so that they could spend their lives serving society. They could have just as easily studied electrical engineering for a few years and gone to work to make newer, smaller iPods or gone into marketing, and made a whole lot more money doing something ultimately destructive to our society.
How little should the people who make sure that the developer and contractor don’t build houses that fall and crush your family be paid?
How little should the people who make sure that pure, clean water comes out of your tap and that the water from the sewer doesn’t poison the Bay be paid?
How little should the people who take your broken body to the hospital after an accident be paid?
How little should the people who design the roads you selfishly drive on everywhere you go be paid?
How little should the people who make the deals to bring the businesses that would make up the boost to the primary economy that you all say San Jose desperately needs be paid?
How little should the people who keep rabid dogs from wandering your streets and biting children be paid?
How little should the accountants who manage an organization with thousands of employees and millions of dollars in the budget be paid?
How little should the City Manager who, if managing a private organization of equal size and import as the City of San Jose, would be paid tens of millions a year be paid? (And, keep in mind that people who go into private industry have no qualms about tax cheating, the looting of pensions, and the fleecing or ordinary investors.)
#13: You do elect the San Jose Redevelopment Agency Board. It’s called “The San Jose City Council.” This County did elect two representatives to the MTC. Their names are Dave Cortese and Dean Chu. Why can’t you bother to learn things?
I’m neutral on this issue. I live in Willow Glen and work in Downtown San Jose. I can use the light rail, the 64 bus or the 82 bus. The light rail and 82 bus stop at Saint James Park, one block from my office. The 64 bus stops on East Santa Clara Street, two blocks from my office. Any of these routes is a fifteen minute commute. VTA buses are heated in the winter and air-conditioned in the summer. The streets don’t have to be in good condition either. The suspension systems on VTA buses are fantastic. The ride on light rail is as smooth as silk.
If only people had the sense of Mr Berlin to live near their place of work.
#5
This is definitely a San Jose issue. I drive up 85 to 101 from Santa Teresa to Redwood City every day for work. SJ city council members sit on VTA and would be the ones to vote whether or not this gets implemented. My commute would cost me $10 bucks roughly each way, $20 a day $100 a week which would be a tough on the wallet.
Government 101—How to Become a Successful Politician
Course Description: This course introduces the basic concepts of problem creation, pretentious posturing, deflective rhetoric, and tax packaging. Students will examine how to accumulate wealth and political power by acting against the public’s best interests (problem creation), how to use choreographed media events to claim credit and conceal incompetence (pretentious posturing), how to craft blame, deny culpability, sell failure as opportunity (deflective rhetoric), and how to mask new taxes as innovative and fair solutions (tax packaging).
Final grade to be based on a student’s ability to craft a new tax proposal out of given a hypothetical situation. Here is an example of previous problem and a student’s “A” solution.
Scenario: For over a decade young families in Silicon Valley have been confronted with a dilemma: the family-size homes within their price range are in neighborhoods that are undesirable and have poorly-performing public schools, or are located thirty plus miles away from their jobs. A great number of these young families have opted for one of the many new home developments in outlaying areas. There, they raise their children, participate in school programs, work to create communities, all the while paying substantially more for PG&E and gasoline each month than do their coworkers who live closer to work.
As would be expected, the addition of so many new commuters onto the area’s freeways has created traffic problems significant enough to cause the public to look to its leadership for solutions. As a political leader, how would you approach this situation?
Answer: First of all, I would refuse to acknowledge government’s role in creating the problem. I would suppress any mention of the decline in local school performance, the menacing gang problems in our more affordable neighborhoods, the runaway price of gasoline, and the misuse of transportation funds. I would, however, make well known my concern for the environmental impact of commute traffic, the stress the commute puts on local workers and their families, and the need for innovative solutions. I would also introduce into the discussion the importance of individual choice and behavior, being sure to emphasize the terms public transit, car pooling, and, of course, SUV’s. My strategy would be to divert the public’s attention away from the root causes of the problem by giving them someone to blame, being careful to avoid any mention that the sacrifices made by these working commuters will ultimately provide us with good citizens for our future.
I will also have prepared trite responses and explanations as to why I personally do not carpool, use public transit, or drive a hybrid car.
Once the public has been convinced that the problem cannot be solved relying on existing revenue sources (whether this is true or false is immaterial), I would propose a new tax, one aimed at a group with no local power (voting in other towns and counties) and no little local sympathy. I would sell my tax as the first-step in solving a very difficult problem (branding it as a first-step removes any requirement to produce tangible results), a tax that is both Green and voluntary (I would avoid mentioning the consequences to non-participants, such as the reduced gas mileage and even slower commute that would result from fewer available lanes). Lastly, I would overestimate the additional revenues and publicly vow that the funds will be used for road repair and improvements (while privately making a list of pet projects on which to spend existing, soon-to-be-freed-up transportation funds).
This is just another attack on the working middle class. If you make enough to pay; you get better treatment.
It’s simply a “halves” vs “halve nots” issue.
If you really want more effective roads, more mass transit and less cars; then tax the gas gussling tanks that are clogging up the roads.
Basically, set a minimum “without” tax estimated mileage for cars (say 32 miles per gallon) and tax those that gobble up and burn fuel. use the tax for both more effective roads (ie carpool lanes) and mass transit (BART and buses with real frequency).
Trust me the google rich goof balls in hummers can afford either fee.
If you’re willing to pay us $.25 for our thoughts, go right ahead with your plan. How will we get OUR money, through PayPal?
Dave #26, don’t you understand? These highly trained professionals are supposed to be happy to work for McDonalds wages! It’s not that capitalists pay their workers a miniscule fraction of a living wage, much less what the irreplaceable hours of their lives spent at work are worth, it’s that skilled government workers are paid far too much and should suffer along with the rest of America’s working class.
I’ve seen the VTA HOT proposal. There is a very high construction cost for HOT lanes.
It isn’t just a Fastrak device. You also need to build separation space between the HOT lane and the rest of traffic, for the entire length of the freeway.
It costs about $1 for each $3 people pay. As a revenue collection scheme, it’s miserable. That means 1/3 of the money collected is lost.
I can’t think of another revenue generator which loses 1/3 of the money collected.
#23 is stumped:“I can’t think of another revenue generator which loses 1/3 of the money collected.” Wouldn’t that be the federal government?
23 and 28:
Are you two crazy? Every business in the world would be thrilled to make a profit of 66.6%. (Math might be over your heads, so I’ll explain it. If each dollar invested returns three dollars in revenue, that is a 66.6% profit. Each dollar invested produces three, which is two more than you started with.)
This is a very simple concept: All business ventures require investment. It’s the goal of all investors in riskier ventures to earn more than they would have by dumping the money in the bank. Aren’t interest rates at the bank right now are about 6%? Don’t mutual funds return about 12% these days? If these lanes were an investment, I would jump at the chance to earn 66.6%.
For reasons stated before, these are a terrible idea. Preferential treatment for the rich, more traffic on surface streets, and discouragement of carpooling through the reduction of its benefit are all bad consequences. But, if I were an investor and could buy shares in this, I would be laughing at you guys from aboard the VTA Light Rail on my ride all the way to the bank.
Dave,
You’ve mixed apples and oranges. Household pay usually includes more than one worker. Second, I doubt that the 105K pay for firefighters includes their unbeliveably generous retirement and easily obtained disability benefits. So OK pay them 100K and take away the guaranteed benefit retirement plans.
How about a congestion tax? SF is considering it for its downtown.
Something like this: Come into Silicon Valley, pay $10. Think about it—the access points are pretty narrow (a source of congestion, as we all know): 680 and 880 in the northeast, 152 at Hecker Pass and Pacheco Pass, 101, and 25 in the south, 17 and 9 in the southeast. Erect a Berlin Wall style divider down Page Mill/Oregon Expwy (include toll gates on 101 and 280) and we’re set, right?
HOT lanes are interesting, but the space and infrastructure costs are enormous, esp given the lack of space on our freeways at present. Better to just tax gasoline.
With regards to 20, 26, 27 & 30,
I understood that the cost of public safety would most likely be more than that of the cost of public education, but I had no idea that the salary disparity would be so great.
The salary range for San Jose teachers is $18,000 – $80,000 with the majority making about $40,000 a year.
While I understand that fighting fires is dangerous, the San Jose local fire union web site claims that the last on-duty fireman to die was in 1910!
http://www.sanjosefirefighters.org
Dave #26 San Jose’s median household income is $70,921 from US Census Bureau, American Community Survey; 2005 and was $70,243 in 2000
San Jose’s citizens are poorest in rich valley
66% household incomes less than $100,000
23% household incomes less $35,000
9% household incomes less $5,000
What is $105,000 number and where did you get it?
HOV lanes were built to make better use of limited freeway capacity. The idea was to get people to carpool in order to reduce congestion. Keep your eye on the ball. Stick to the plan. Just say “no” to HOTs that use taxpayer funded traffic lanes.
I certainly made a fool of myself. 66.7% of the income is pure profit, but the return on the investment is a whopping 200%! TWO HUNDRED PERCENT!
#33 $$$$ It is real nice to see someone admit when they were wrong. I saw it when you posted but I thought someone else would
tell you.
Mr Taxpayer #20,
Since the median household income in Santa Clara Valley is $105,000, is it such a bad thing to pay our firemen or police officers at least the median income in our community?
#32
The numbers came from Santa Clara Valley Housing Action Coalition who got their information from HUD. http://www.svlg.net/issues/housing/resources/200601HAC_criteria.pdf
Here is also another reference to that number from the City of San Jose Department of Housing
http://www.sjhousing.org/data/eligible.html
To Willow Glen Dad #30
After visiting a friend in Willow Glen over the weekend, it is astonishing to see the amount of disposable income spent demolishing houses and rebuilding the McMansions in Willow Glen over the past 10 years. No doubt most of this money came from the dot com era when paper millionaires were born overnight and the cops and firemen were left behind. That is why so many cops and firemen were forced to move from this area. Now that things have gone bust for the dot com workers and the playing field has evened a bit you are the first to cry that somebody else has decent pay and benefits. And also, the cops and firemen are paying a large part of their own gross income into their own retirement. If the dot com workers had thought ahead when they had their millions instead of pissing it away maybe there wouldn’t be so many “For Sale” signs dotting Willow Glen.
Forget about the carpool lane!
After reviewing the disclosed salaries of our city firefighters, I was astonished to learn that 563 of the 672 employees made over $ 100,000 in 2006, which is approximately 84% of the total force. Seven percent of the remaining 16% made over $90,000 a year.
This is troubling to me since I have been asked in the last two elections to vote yes on a parcel tax because our schools do not have enough money to properly educate our children. I am curious to see what our teachers are making in comparison.
I know all to well that enough taxes are being collected by the checks I write each year!
#17
re: “…sense of Mr Berlin to live near their place of work.”
I agree, it does make sense. For those who choose the newly built Coyote Valley tract home over an older smaller fixer upper close to work, that is a choice.
For those that who cannot afford to buy in town or close to where they work, it’s a different matter. You are right, people can make choices and when it comes to a place to live and distance to work, it’s not always an easy choice. Some are learning this the hard way.
Dave #35
I find your blanket comments about San Jose taxpayers pretty much out of whack:
“No doubt most of this money came from the dot com era when paper millionaires were born overnight and the cops and firemen were left behind.”
Since when did police officers and firemen start to compare themselves with “paper millionaires”? The unions, especially around election time, tell us that these highly skilled professionals do their jobs out of love and want to help people.
“Now that things have gone bust for the dot com workers and the playing field has evened a bit you are the first to cry that somebody else has decent pay and benefits.”
On the contrary, my portfolio have done quite well for the last decade.
“If the dot com workers had thought ahead when they had their millions instead of pissing it away maybe there wouldn’t be so many “For Sale” signs dotting Willow Glen.”
I believe most of these homes are for sale due to sub-prime loans and company layoffs.
“That is why so many cops and firemen were forced to move from this area.”
After seeing disclosed salaries, it looks as if a lot of homes in Willow Glen will now be purchased by these “highly skilled” professionals.
#35 Dave
You raise a good point. Yes dot com dollars have been a great contributor to the valley’s growth and financial underpinning. And you are correct; dot com’ers became millionaires while police and fire wages and benefits plugged along with small incremental increases.
Here’s a thought: when police and fire folks retire at 75, 80 or 85% of their top salary for life, that’s a big deal. For example, take $80k /yr plus medical coverage and round that to $100k/yr for life plus cost-of-living increases and what do you have? Answer: the equivalent of a 5% fixed income on a $2,000,000.00 401K account for life.
Is this correct?
How many of the tens of thousands of folks in this dot com valley have that in the bank with a union behind them to protect it?
Any idea? Want to venture a guess?
Dot com goes bust and police and fire are still locked in with cost of living increases, a strong union, public need and no competition from outsourcing or world market conditions. Not so in the private sector.
Just a thought.
#39:
Maybe you should organize your workplace, then. There’s no immutable law of the universe that says that the bosses deserve to be paid one hundred times more than the workers who actually produce wealth for the company.
Concerned Citizen,
I don’t know where you got your information about teacher salaries but no California district is paying teachers 18,000. The last numbers I could get were for the 04 – 05 school year. I’s sure they are higher now and they are for SJ Unified:
40K to 80 K.
State numbers for 04 – 05 are:
38K to 74K
This is from the SJ Unified web site. Many districts in SJ such as Evergreen pay considerably more.
The city should just file for bankruptcy and void all of those nice fat pension plans.
If a private company were in financial crisis, as the city is, you can believe that heads would roll – someone needs to be held accountable.
The State of Illinois, the City of Chicago has had HOT lanes since 1980, the first one ran from downtown Chicago to Oakbrook, Ill.
The Test was worked. Chicago and the State had the money to build the HOT lanes, the concrete barriers and the toll stations. San Jose, VTA, and the State are all broke, where will we get the money for this project. We asked the State to fix the I-280/I-880 grid lock problems and we were turned down because of lack of funds. Am I missing something here.
Why are we building the HOT lanes, with the new projected gasoline costs by summer 2008,”$4 dollars per gallon, only the privilaged will be able to afford the HOT lanes.
#40 $$$$$$
Sounds good in theory but try organizing a union in your workplace and you’ll be shown the door!
Labor laws or not – companies no very well how to “eliminate” a person they deem a problem.
In the private sector, its all about producing results and hoping that the company does not downsize.
42: “If a private company were in financial crisis, as the city is, you can believe that heads would roll – someone needs to be held accountable.”
If a private company were in a financial crisis, it would be because the managers and main shareholders had looted it. While the ordinary shareholders and employees suffer, those responsible would be living in mansions with no fear of accountability, their money safe in tax shelters.
How about giving a priority to San Jose on Rapid Transit by extending the Light Rail Line on Hwy 85 from the Hwy 85/Hwy 87 interchange north along the Hwy 85 corridor to Mt. View to the Hwy 85/101 interchange and into the Shoreline business park. This would help relieve the traffic gridlock on 85 and would benefit more San Josean`s and help keep jobs in our City/County.
With gasoline projecting to reach some $4 dollars a gallon the summer of 2008 (per Chevron ca.). Commuters along Hwy 85 fill up their cars two to three times a week on this route. Twice a week fill up cost the motorist $400.00 a month on todays pricing and could easily reach $600.00 per month in 2008.
BART to Alameda County benefits Alameda County more than San Jose/Santa Clara County residents. The sales taxes would be paid by S J/SCC residents for the benefit of Alameda jobs and developers building in Alameda County.
San Jose needs jobs. Put San Jose First. Put BART on the back burners for a while, delelop the light rail system, learn how to make it work.
Stop…Put San Jose First.
It seems a common theme of some of the prior posts is “since we are in an industry that has had jobs outsourced and benefits slashed, policemen, firemen, and teachers should suffer in our loss too”. Instead of taking out your anger on those who serve the community, how about going to the root of the problem. It is your company executives that sold you out to make a cheaper widget in India and China. It is the politicians that provided the laws necessary to facilitate the outsourcing of jobs. Our industrial and capitalistic heart and soul, the American worker, has been used, screwed and cheated by those who have sold off our best jobs to third world countries. Be mad at them. Demand change in the corporations and government to keep our jobs in the United States. I’m sure those that made their hundreds of millions, if not billions, get a laugh everytime they see our society blame our public servants for all the woes. Hold the CEO’s who still make millions of dollars in bonuses and salary although they have bankrupt their company responsible for cheating the workers out of their hard earned pensions. We are well on our way to turning into a third world country if we keep sending our best jobs to other countries. Do you want to level the playing field to the point we have sweatshops in our country employing basically slave labor. That is what many of our leading companies including those here in Silicon Valley have done in other countries. In the meantime, if there is someone who seeks a job paying a decent wage, has benefits, and a retirement program (like most good jobs use to provide until outsourced), be a police officer. There is a serious shortage of applicants and officers in California so you should easily be able get into a field with health benefits and a pension plan if you need.
#46
Twice a week fill up cost the motorist $400.00 a month on todays pricing and could easily reach $600.00 per month in 2008.
Anybody who lives so far away from their job that they need to fill-up twice a week, and drive such a gas guzzler that it costs them $400/month does not deserve to much sympathy, even though I can “feel their pain”.
Personally, my 11 mile commute up 101 is to far, and $15 a week gas bill is to high, so I agree that San Jose needs more jobs, especially high-tech jobs. We need to do everything possible to get Google and other companies to leave Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and relocate here.
So, what can we do to get jobs in San Jose, provide reasonably priced homes on large lots, and get people to stop commuting?
It appears that the best idea to help San Jose is to close the recreational Reid-Hillview airport and develop the 180 acres for industry. This location is at the intersection of 101 and 280/680, which is the gateway to the Bay area. It is on Capitol Expressway, and light rail will be extended down Capitol, so this is a perfect location for industry.
http://www.reidhillview.com/RHV_brochure.pdf
It certainly makes more sense to provide jobs by in-fill than to develop Coyote Valley for jobs.
The biggest benefit, other than the jobs and resulting tax revenue, is that high-tech workers will start moving into East San Jose.
The homes are reasonably priced and, since they were built during the 1950s, the lots are huge, and provide lots of room for home improvements. Plus, local residents can easily walk, or bicycle to work at the new high-tech campus on the adjacent residential streets.
As high-tech workers start moving into the neighborhood, this will result in the neighborhood improving. Additionally, the schools will start to improve as new residents who understand the value of a good education start advocating education and helping the schools.
Obviously, using the 180 acres of land at Reid-Hillview in an intelligent manner will reap numerous positive improvements for society, and generate a huge increase in tax revenue for both the city and county.
From the Palo Alto Daily News – 7/29/07
Unlike in San Jose, where rising police and firefighter salary and benefits drove the spike in employee overall costs, county public safety workers saw smaller increases than their civilian colleagues.
Salary and benefits for the average public safety employee, a group that includes deputy sheriffs, rose 48 percent from $88,426 in 2001 to $131,277 in 2007. Salary and benefits for the average civilian county worker rose 55 percent from $66,415 in 2001 to $103,008 in 2007. Santa Clara County, unlike San Jose, isn’t bound to accept binding arbitration over public safety labor contracts.
Raises like these are unheard of in the private sector!
Councilman. . .
Wow! Hardly a day and half after your post and you have 34 responses; nice going.
You certainly know how to get involved, get into an issue and tap the feelings of our fair city.
I don’t believe this; a councilperson with the courage dive in, raise the difficult questions, take on the debate in search for the solutions, and not lay back and support the deep-pocket positions that put him/her in office. I like that.
I wonder how many other tax paying residents of our fair city find this refreshingly democratic.
#48
Consider yourself fortunate to live so close to your work.
There are a lot of people that can`t afford to live in San Jose and comute here 5 days a week in a car pool from the enteral valley, some from the Dubblin area, the comute didn`t cost as much when the gasoline cost was $2 dollars gallon. Now it`s braking them and it`s going to get worse.
There are quite a few driving from South San Jose`s Santa Teresa area to work in Mt. View or Palo Alto 5 days a week, some commuters come from Margan Hill and San Martin to jobs in the Mt View area.
Lot of these people commute these distances out of necessity, just to survive. At one time many of them had jobs closer, but many of these jobs are gone.
San Jose and Santa Clara County has a record number of forclosure, little San Martin has over 80 homes in forclosure.
Retail sales are off in the valley. Young families are struggling to hold on. All this is not because they are driving driving “Gas Guzzlers”. They are just trying to survive. We`ve lost a lot of “good paying” jobs in the Valley.
San Jose needs a good rapid transit system, we need affordable housing for the less privilaged working in the lower paying jobs, “in San Jose”.
Back to the subject, we need affordable transportation, we need to end the grid lock or we will lose more jobs. Hot lanes will only benefit those living along the Hwy 85 corridor going to work in Palo Alto or Mt View, these people can afford to pay an extra $4 dollars each way to get out of the Hwy 85 grid lock.
People living in Los Gatos, Saratoga,Monte Sereno, Cupertino, Los Altos live along the Hwy 85 corridor, the hot lane will benefit these people, not the strugling families.
In resonse to # 47,
I can’t speak for others, but I think if you want to have the quality of life that you feel you deserve in this city of ours, then as a working professional, you need to take an ambitious approach to your work. Educate and challenge yourself to be the best professional in your industry. Don’t become complacent!
As a professional who frequently travels abroad, I can honestly say, in my experience, that foreign workers have nothing over American workers.
If our city officials, who we elect, choose to agree on a contract with the firefighters and police unions then so be it. We can’t come back later and bitch and moan about it.
Also, we live in one of only a few places in the country that if you don’t like your job or if you do happen to get laid off, there are other opportunities throughout the valley.
As with any economy, there are ups and downs; don’t give your company an excuse to axe you – become a valuable employee.
Sorry Richard (who said:”.. delelop the light rail system, learn how to make it work.”) but VTA doesn’t know how to make anything work. The LAST thing we ned is to be “saved” by VTA.
Sorry, Greg # 49(who said:“A gas tax costs relatively little to implement, so most of the money collected could go towards road or transit improvements.”) but the state government has been looting gas tax money from road building and maintenance for years to shore up the general fund, and will continue to do so unless the people stop it, which will never happen.
This post by PO started as “A quarter for your thoughts”. Well, capo, here’s a thought:
Deep inside the Murky News the other day was a blurb that Christine Shippey, of Long Beach, was hired to be the new Assistant City Manager for SJ@ $228,000.00/year (plus benefits, which the erstwhile reporter failed to mention, which is probably worth 50% of her pay additional; health care forever at no cost to her, deferred compensation, etc.).
Ms. Shippey replaces Ms. Winer, who earned a mere $197,000.00/year ( plus bennies, of course). Yeah, that’s a step in the right direction, PO, mayor & councilmembers, hire a replacement at $31k more!!!
The Murky News was told all this by Mona Favorite-Hill, a “city spokeswoman”. They didn’t tell us how much she made to be the mouthpiece for the city.
Anyhow, there was one bright light in this story—Ms. Winer’s position (CHIEF Deputy City Manager, an underling to an ASSISTANT City Manager (and how many of those are there????)) would be retired. Now when I read CHIEF Deputy, that implies to me SEVERAL Deputies. Wanna bet they ALL make well into six figures, PLUS BENNIES???
But what do they actually DO besides report to EACH OTHER? Quien sabe?, except that the do make a lot of dinero.
So, my quarter’s worth Pierluigi, Chuck, and the rest of the council—forget about bottled water, Little Saigon or New Saigon, and all the other meaningless nonsense you are wasting your time on lately and terminate ALL the CHIEF deputies in every department, and terminate HALF the deputies. That’s gotta be $20-$40 million in savings each year.
All positions need to be looked at for value, but most managerial positions are likely dead weight, adding little or no value…and they make the most bucks.
$$$$$$ writes ” Every business in the world would be thrilled to make a profit of 66.6%.”
Yes, and every government in the world would be embarassed by a tax collection agency which absorbs 33% of gross revenues.
HOT lanes are a fee or tax, not a business. And, as a fee, they are tremendously inefficient.
( Imagine the IRS spent one third of the federal budget, one trillion dollars per year, to implement the income tax. It would be larger than the department of defense. )
It would be much simpler, and more efficient, just to raise the gas tax. A gas tax costs relatively little to implement, so most of the money collected could go towards road or transit improvements.
The only reason that HOT lanes are being considered is that they bypass the constitutional requirement for a vote on any new tax.
Instead of skirting the rules, the VTA should reform their internal operations and begin to rebuild the public trust.
#53
Come on John, haven’t you heard how many idiots it takes to change a light bulb?
Our city does an excellent job with vertical management; they have so many people reporting what’s to be done that there is nobody to do the actual work. It must suck being the low-man in that system.
I always heard you get what you pay for, but thats not the case here.
Returning back to the subject, the HOT lane could work if the revenue from the lane was used specifically to continue light rail along the Hwy 85 corridor, and make sure this, “is not another ploy to generate funds to pay for BART`s extension to San Jose. Make absolutly sure !
BART to San Jose should be re-classified as,” BART to ALAMEDA County… as the extension is for the benefit of Alameda County.
The residents of Santa Clara County, San Jose, should be for programs, or measures that benefit and keep jobs in our City and County.
We are developing a bueatiful downtown with Companies like Adobe and BEA Systems, we need more firms like this downtown, we have the workforce here to support more firms. If we need more Rapid Transit moving our residents downtown from neighborhoods within our City and County we should build it.
We have a bueatiful light rail system that just needs to be developed. The L R is clean and it runs very quietly.
The money generated from a HOT lane is again a Tax…if it is going to be pushed through…then use funds for the people in our county that will be contributing the sales tax revenue. Dont send the money to Alameda County.
RE: HOT Lanes
Imagine you are an executive headed for an important, early morning meeting, or a single mother trying to pick up her chidren from day care. You get to the freeway and all you see are brake lights and you realize ou are going to be late. The executive may lose his job, and the single mother has to pay $5 or every minute after 6pm she is late in picking up her child. Would you pay 25-cents per mile to bypass the gridlock? In these situations, you bet I would! It all comes down to the value of your time as compared to the toll.
HOT lanes provide another alternative to the single occupant vehile sitting in a congested freeway. HOT lanes do not reduce congestion – but they do allow for increased number of cars, and people to be on a certain section of freeway at the same time by allowing single occupant vehicles the opportuity to pay for the use of the underutilized capacity of an HOV lane. This increases the capacity, or throughput, of our freeway system. Would you rather add more lanes to the freeway?
And what about the revenue generated? It makes money!! Money that can be used to maintain the freeway system from pavement to litter. Money that can be invested in improvements to parallel transit service, bike lanes and other forms of commute alternatives.
Yes, we call them “free”ways for a reason. But this is not sustainable. In one of Gary Richards’ articles earlier this week he wrote that it costs the average person 62-cents per mile to own and operate their vehicle. These are the direct costs most people identify with…car payments, fuel, insurance, etc. If the true costs were passed on to motorists, it would be double that if you take into account “free”way maintenance, operations, enforcement, environmental impacts, etc. If I’m not paying for it, where does the money come from to operate “free”ways?
Largely from gas taxes, although gas taxes are not enough to cover the costs to operate, maintain and provide sufficient enforcement of the many miles of highway we have in Santa Clara County. Ever notice how many people complain about these very issue? There is just not enough funding currently available to address all of these concerns. Also, with increases in car efficiency, gas tax revenue is declining, even though people drive more.
Many have raised the concern of equity. Equity ranges from eonomic to geographic to gender. These were significant concerns in the development of HOT lanes in other regions of the nation that were only resolved through extensive community outreach, participation and involvement. Keep your eyes and ears open for these opportunities for discussion.
HOT lanes are not the solution to all of problems we have on our roadways, but it is a step toward providing a sustainable revenue source to maintain and improve the transportation network that we have alredy invested in. HOT lanes provide another alternatve to sitting on a congested “free”way just like the transit system does.
The more transportation choices we have leads to improved accsssibility and mobility for all and a healthier community and economy. Isn’t that what we want?
Question, Pierluigi, My understanding is HOT lanes are managed by MTC, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and thus decides where income from the HOT lanes are to be invested, is this true? Is VTA a member of MTC as are other Bay Area Governments ? Is this organization similar to Bay Area Rapid Transit System ? Can the income from the HOT lanes be funneled into BART as opposed to , ” the Light Rail System”? The proposed HOT lanes in Santa Clara County are used during the heavy commute hours by local residents, how can this income be directed so that our local residents benefit from this new ,“Fee or Tax” and toward more light rail along Hwy 85 where there is still room to build a Light Rail System along the 85 corridor, and to add another efficent mode of transportation for local residents and take pressure off Hwy 85 ?
The income from HOT lanes would go to the VTA. The money can go towards whatever the VTA wants.
There is probably a prop 218 requirement for a link between the fee and the expenditure- the money must be spent in some way that *arguably* benefits the payers of the fee.
However, the argument doesn’t have to be very good. BART-SJ has very little to do with bay area bridges, but bridge tolls have been used to pay for part of it.